Chapter 3 Characteristics of Juvenile Offenders

03-Cox (Juvenile)-45337.
qxd
7/24/2007
4:26 PM
Page 39
C H A P T E R
3
CHARACTERISTICS OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS
CHAPTER LEARNING OBJECTIVES
On completion of this chapter, students should be able to Recognize differences between delinquency profiles based on official statistics and behavioral profiles Recognize and discuss the multitude of factors related to delinquency Discuss the impact of social factors (e.g., family, schools, social class) on delinquency Discuss the effects of physical factors (e.g., gender, age, race) on delinquency
KEY TERMS
Social factors Socialization process Broken homes Latchkey children Socioeconomic status Learning disabled Youth culture Criminal subculture Underclass Methamphetamine Dropouts Crack
39
03-Cox (Juvenile)-45337.qxd
7/24/2007
4:26 PM
Page 40
40
JUVENILE JUSTICE
n any discussion of the general characteristics of juvenile offenders, we must be aware of possible errors in the data and must be cautious concerning the impression presented. In general, profiles of juvenile offenders are drawn from official files based on police contacts, arrests, and/or incarceration. Although these profiles may accurately reflect the characteristics of juveniles who are or will be incarcerated or who have a good chance for an encounter with the justice network, they might not accurately reflect the characteristics of all juveniles who commit offenses. Studies have established that the number of youthful offenders who formally enter the justice network is small in comparison with the total number of violations committed by juveniles. Hidden offender surveys, in which juveniles are asked to anonymously indicate the offenses they have committed, have indicated repeatedly that far more offenses are committed than are reported in official agency reports. In addition, even those juveniles who commit offenses resulting in official encounters are infrequently officially processed through the entire network. The determination of who will officially enter the justice network depends on many variables that are considered by law enforcement and other juvenile justice personnel. It is important to remember that official profiles of youthful offenders might not actually represent those who commit youthful offenses but rather represent only those who enter the system. It is common practice to use official profiles of juveniles as a basis for development of delinquency prevention programs. Based on the characteristics of known offenders, prevention programs that ignore the characteristics of the hidden and/or unofficial delinquent have been initiated. For example, there is official statistical evidence indicating that the major proportion of delinquents comes from lower socioeconomic families and neighborhoods. The correlates of poverty and low social status include substandard housing, poor sanitation, poor medical care, unemployment, and so forth. It has been suggested that if these conditions were altered, delinquency might be reduced. However, as Harcourt and Ludwig (2006) found out in their study of broken windows policing, changing the disorder does not necessarily reduce or eliminate criminal behavior. (Recall our comments on middle-class delinquency in Chapter 2.)
Are juveniles who hang out on street corners to be feared?
7/24/2007
4:26 PM
Page 41
Chapter 3
Characteristics of Juvenile Offenders
41
Even with the trend toward development of large mixed-income housing projects, Holzman (1996) suggested that big-city public housing will continue to suffer from crime. Venkatesh (1997) suggested that public housing projects are characterized by their own type of social support networks and that the move to scattered site housing destroys such networks; thus mixed-income developments, even large ones, may have something to offer. The factors causing delinquency seem to be numerous and interwoven in complex ways. Multiple factors must be considered if we are to improve our understanding of delinquency. Thornberry, Huizinga, and Loeber (2004) found that drug, school, and mental health problems are strong risk factors for male adolescent involvement in persistent and serious delinquency, although more than half of persistent serious offenders do not have such problems. Still, more than half of the males studied who did have persistent problems with drugs, school, or mental health were also persistent and serious delinquents. Fewer than half of persistent and serious female delinquents studied had drug, school, or mental health problems, but these problems alone or in combination were not strong risk factors for serious delinquency. Most criminologists contend that a number of different factors combine to produce delinquency (see In Practice 3.1). Unfortunately, simplistic explanations are often appealing and sometimes lead to prevention and rehabilitation efforts that prove to be of very little value. With this in mind, let us now turn our attention to some of the factors that are viewed as important determinants of delinquent behavior. It must be emphasized once again that most of the information we have concerning these factors is based on official statistics. For a more accurate portrait of the characteristics of actual juvenile offenders, we must also concentrate on the vast majority of juveniles who commit delinquent acts but are never officially labeled as delinquent.
In Practice 3.1
Various Factors Led to Rise in Juvenile Crime: Arrests of Youths Shot Up by Nearly 40 Percent in JanuaryA Rise in Adult Arrests May Have Contributed
arlos Petty, the 16-year-old accused of shooting a Tastykake deliveryman this month, was a ninth grader at West Philadelphia High School. He had 96 unexcused absences this year. Last year, his first try at ninth grade, he missed 57 days. His juvenile record includes arrests in the theft of two automobiles, police said. He also was arrested when a teacher was assaulted, police said, though the school district says it has no record of that. Investigators believe that Pettywho has declined to cooperatemay have robbed the deliveryman to satisfy his taste for designer clothes, such as the Rocawear sweatshirt and the street-hip AND1 sneakers he was wearing when he was caught last Monday after a brief chase near his home in Southwest Philadelphia. Police still are seeking a teenage accomplice.
(Continued)
7/24/2007
4:26 PM
Page 42
42
JUVENILE JUSTICE
(Continued) Incidences of juvenile violence, such as the videotaped beating of a Drexel University student by local high school students earlier this year, have shocked the city. Who are these youths who are so quick to pull the trigger, to act brutally without hesitation, and are their attacks part of a rising trend? Philadelphia police data show a rise in juvenile arrests in connection with violent crimes over the last four years, from 1,795 in 2002 to 1,956 last year, a 9 percent increase. But in January, juvenile arrests in violent incidents spiked by nearly 40 percentfrom 126 last year to 176. Thats a big jump, said Jeffrey A. Roth, associate director of research at the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology at the University of Pennsylvania. Roth said that police targeting young offenders may account for some of the increase but that the larger number seems to indicate more juvenile crime was being committed. Nationally, juvenile crime peaked in the early to mid-1990s and has generally been declining. A report to be released tomorrow by the U.S. Department of Justice says the arrest rate for juvenile violent crime in 2003 was below the levels of the 1980s. The data suggest an ebb and flow in this, said Lawrence W. Sherman, director of the Jerry Lee Center. And theres always the perception that the current crop of youth is behaving worse than earlier generations. The people who come out of Graterford [Prison] say the younger people are wilder, but they always say that, Sherman said. Various factors contribute to the rise and fall of juvenile violence and delinquency. Sherman noted that high school dropout rates declined in the 1990s, which some experts believe helped reduce juvenile crime. Roth, however, stressed that dropout rates may be a good leading indicator but not necessarily a cause of juvenile crime. Philadelphia has recorded a slight decline in secondary school dropouts in recent years, according to state records. But each year, more than 5,000 students give up on their educationoften with nothing to turn to except the streets. Petty, though he basically stopped going to school this year, was not yet considered a dropout but rather, in district jargon, a non-attender. Experts also are examining the impact of arrests and the removal of adults from communities as a factor in juvenile crime. Ralph B. Taylor, a Temple University criminologist, has conducted preliminary research of Philadelphia police districts that shows a rise in serious juvenile delinquency in specific districts after an increase in adult arrests. As the arrest rates go higher and higher, you are taking out adults who are performing important supervisory functions, Taylor said. Petty, who police say nearly killed Tastykake driver Kyle Winkfield, 20, with a large-caliber revolver March 16 in West Philadelphia, lived at home with his mother, Cyrena Bowman, 33, several siblings, and other relatives in the citys Kingsessing section. He is a good boy, said his mother, who declined to comment further. Marion Bowman, Pettys great-grandmother, said he was in the house all day long the day of the shooting except when he went out to pick up one or two younger siblings from school. He takes care of me and fixes me breakfast, she said before Pettys mother arrived and angrily ordered a reporter to leave the house. Virginia Coverson, 79, a retired Philadelphia public school teacher who lives next door to Pettys family, said that the teen had gotten into trouble at school last year and that his mother had asked her to write a letter to the school in support of him. (Continued)
7/24/2007
4:26 PM
Page 43
Chapter 3
43
(Continued) Coverson, who briefly served as a substitute teacher at West Philadelphia High after she retired, said she wrote that he was a good boy around here as far as I know. Coverson said Petty was quiet, polite, and would offer to shovel snow in front of her rowhouse. Id give him five dollars for his work, she said. Gwen Morris, the districts interim assistant superintendent for alternative education, said Petty, with his excessive truancy, was put in a program last year for troubled students called Opportunity for Success. But Pettys truancy worsened. In January, he and his mother met with school officials, and Petty signed a contract in which he vowed to show improvement, Morris said. The last day he attended school was Feb. 13. Marvin Daughtry, 18, another neighbor, said Petty was not the type to pick up a gun to solve his problems. Daughtry said Petty was usually on the block hanging out or at the Kingsessing Recreation Center playing basketball. Both neighbors said they were not aware of Pettys brushes with the law. He is now charged as an adult with attempted murder and is being held on $1 million bail.
SOURCE: Moran, Robert. (2006, March 27). Various Factors Led to Rise in Juvenile CrimeArrests of Youth Shot Up by Nearly 40 Percent in January. The Philadelphia Inquirer, page B1. Copyright 2006, The Philadelphia Inquirer. All rights reserved. Used with permission.
Social Factors
As they grow up, children are exposed to a number of social factors that may increase their risk for problems such as abusing drugs and engaging in delinquent behavior. Risk factors function in a cumulative fashion; that is, the greater the number of risk factors, the greater the likelihood that youth will engage in delinquent or other risky behavior. There is also evidence that problem behaviors associated with risk factors tend to cluster. For example, delinquency and violence cluster with other problems, such as drug abuse, teen pregnancy, and school misbehavior. (Helping Americas Youth, n.d.) Shown in Chart 3.1 are a number of factors experienced by juveniles as individuals, as family members, in school, among their peers, and in their communities. For further information concerning the indicators of these risks and data sources associated with such indicators, visit the Web site from which the chart was adapted.
Family
One of the most important factors influencing delinquent behavior is the family setting. It is within the family that the child internalizes those basic beliefs, values, attitudes, and general patterns of behavior that give direction to subsequent behaviors. Because the family is the initial transmitter of the culture (through the socialization process) and greatly shapes the personality characteristics of the child, considerable emphasis has been given to family structure, functions, and processes in delinquency research (Smith & Stern, 1997). Although it is not
7/24/2007
4:26 PM
Page 44
44
JUVENILE JUSTICE
Chart 3.1
Individual
Risk Factors for Health and Behavior Problems
Antisocial behavior and alienation/delinquent beliefs/general delinquency involvement/drug dealing Gun possession/illegal gun ownership/carrying Teen parenthood Favorable attitudes toward drug use/early onset of alcohol/other drug (AOD) use Early onset of aggression/violence Intellectual and/or developmental disabilities Victimization and exposure to violence Poor refusal skills Life stressors Early sexual involvement Mental disorder/mental health problem
Family
Family history of problem behavior/parent criminality Family management problems/poor parental supervision and/or monitoring Poor family attachment/bonding Child victimization and maltreatment Pattern of high family conflict Family violence Having a young mother Broken home Sibling antisocial behavior Family transitions Parental use of physical punishment/harsh and/or erratic discipline practices
Juveniles relax in front of buildings in New Orleans. Drug use, high crime rates, and dilapidated housing persist in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, but not all juveniles from areas characterized by these problems are delinquents.
(Continued)
7/24/2007
4:26 PM
Page 45
Chapter 3
45
(Continued)
Low parent education level/illiteracy Maternal depression
School
Low academic achievement Negative attitude toward school/low bonding/low school attachment/commitment to school Truancy/Frequent absences Suspension Dropping out of school Inadequate school climate/poorly organized and functioning schools/negative labeling by teachers Identified as learning disabled Frequent school transitions
Peer
Gang involvement/gang membership Peer alcohol/tobacco/other drug (ATOD) use Association with delinquent/aggressive peers Peer rejection
Community
Availability/use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs in neighborhood Availability of firearms High-crime neighborhood Community instability Low community attachment Economic deprivation/poverty/residence in a disadvantaged neighborhood Neighborhood youth in trouble Feeling unsafe in the neighborhood Social and physical disorder/disorganized neighborhood
SOURCE: Adapted from Helping America's Youth. (n.d.). Site map. Available: http://guide.helpingamericasyouth.gov/sitemap.htm
possible to review all such research here, we concentrate on several areas that have been the focus of attention. A great deal of research focuses on the crucial influence of the family in the formation of behavioral patterns and personality. Contemporary theories attach great importance to the parental role in determining the personality characteristics of children. More than half a century ago, Glueck and Glueck (1950) focused attention on the relationship between family and delinquency, a relationship that has remained in the spotlight ever since (see In Practice 3.2). To young children, home and family are the basic sources of information about life. Thus many researchers and theorists have focused on the types of values, attitudes, and beliefs maintained and passed on by the family over generations. Interest has focused on the types of behavior and attitudes transmitted to children through the socialization process resulting in a predisposition toward delinquent behavior.
7/24/2007
4:26 PM
Page 46
46
JUVENILE JUSTICE
In Practice 3.2
Families Can Open Their Homes to Troubled Teens
endall homeowner Raysa Rodriguez recently took in a 15-year-old girl with a shaky past. She did not adopt the girl, who has bounced in and out of juvenile detention on battery charges and probation violations, and she is not her foster parent. Rather, Rodriguez will house the girl for a year as part of a new program that aims to save troubled youths from lives of delinquency by placing them in stable homes. As a counselor for juvenile delinquents at the alternative Bay Point Schools in Cutler Bay, Rodriguez said it was only natural for her to do something to help. I wanted to impact a youths life, she said. Using a proven behavioral system, host parents and a group of clinical therapists encourage teenagers with serious delinquency or behavioral problems to develop academic skills and positive work habits, helping them become model citizens. A teenagers legal guardian is simultaneously taught more effective parenting skills. Jonelle K. Dougery, a clinical program supervisor at Liberty Resources, which started the CommunityBased Residential Alternative Program, said there are two aims: to create opportunities for youth to live successfully in a family while preparing their parent to provide them with effective parenting, Dougery said, adding that the program is modeled after the Oregon-based Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care Program. Liberty Resources needs more volunteer parents to host children for up to a year at an $18,000 yearly stipend. They just opened the first office in West Kendall this spring at 13016 SW 120th St. This is the only program of its kind in the state. Gerard Bouwman, president of Oregon-based TFC Consultants, whose purpose is to help implement the model in other cities, said research has proven the program is effective. We see significant reductions in contact with authorities subsequent to treatment, a lot less delinquency, a lot less behavior problems, and also [the ability] to function in family settings, Bouwman said. The program is voluntary, but the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice must first refer the teenager. Children must be between 14 and 17 years old, have prior treatment or placement, serious and chronic delinquent behavior, and family problems. Theyre coming to us if they get a new misdemeanor charge or dont abide by conditional release by missing curfew or skipping school and are at risk of being committed again, Dougery said. How does the program work? Children earn points as they exhibit appropriate behavior, such as getting up on time, doing extra chores, and going to each class. Its very encouraging as opposed to only pointing out that they did something wrong, Dougery said. The parents keep tabs on the daily activities of the teen by giving [him or her] a cardlike a progress reportwhich [the teen has] to take daily to school or any after-school job in which teachers and employers have to sign off on the time the teen gets there and leaves. Once a week, the child sees an individual therapist. Theyll role-play situations like, say, over the week the teenager got into a fight with the professional parent, the therapist would say, How could you have handled that differently? Lets talk about it, Dougery said. (Continued)
7/24/2007
4:26 PM
Page 47
Chapter 3
47
(Continued) A skills trainer is also assigned to go out with the children into the community and help them get involved, whether through sports or just interacting with others. If were out in the community and the youth doesnt want to order food, we do it, and through that they learn to model appropriate behavior, Dougery said. A family therapist is assigned to the after-care guardian or the person who will care for the child after the treatment period is over. They go into the home and work with the parents on what were the challenges, how can you do that differently, and teaching them more practical parenting skills because whatever they were doing obviously wasnt working, Dougery said. Host families receive a daily phone call, a two-day training and certification course in the behavioral program, and 24-hour, seven-days-a-week on-call support. The program has room for 10 kids at the time, there are already six referrals, and about six families are undergoing the process to get certified with the state. Rodriguez is the only licensed host at the time.
SOURCE: Pineiro, Yudy. (2006, Sept. 14). Families Can Open Their Homes to Troubled Teens. The Miami Herald, page 15SD. Copyright 2006, The Miami Herald. All rights reserved. Used with permission.
For example, research indicates a relationship between delinquency and the marital happiness of the childrens parents. Official delinquency seems to occur disproportionately among juveniles in unhappy homes marked by marital discord, lack of family communication, unaffectionate parents, high stress and tension, and a general lack of parental cohesiveness and solidarity (Davidson 1990; Fleener 1999; Gorman-Smith, Tolan, & Loeber, 1998; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980; Wright & Cullen, 2001). In unhappy familial environments, it is not unusual to find that parents derive little sense of satisfaction from their childrearing experience. Genuine concern and interest is seldom expressed except on an erratic and convenient basis at the whim of the parents. Also typical of this familial climate are inconsistent guidance and discipline marked by laxity and a tendency to use children against the other parent (Simons, Simons, Burt, Brody, & Cutrona, 2005). It is not surprising to find poor self-images, personality problems, and conduct problems in children of such families. If there is any validity to the adage chip off the old block, it should not be surprising to find children in unpleasant family circumstances internalizing the types of attitudes, values, beliefs, and modes of behavior demonstrated by their parents. It seems that in contemporary society, the family home has in many cases been replaced by a house where a related group of individuals reside, change clothes, and occasionally eat. It is somewhat ironic that we often continue to focus on broken homes (homes disrupted through divorce, separation, or desertion) as a major cause of delinquency rather than on nonbroken homes where relationships are marked by familial disharmony and disorganization. There is no doubt that the stability and continuity of a family may be shaken when the home is broken by the loss of a parent through death, desertion, long separation, or divorce. At a minimum, one half of the potential socializing and control team is separated from the family. The belief that one-parent families produce more delinquents is supported both by official statistics and by numerous studies. Canter (1982), for example, indicated that youths from broken homes reported significantly more delinquent behavior than youths from intact homes. The
7/24/2007
4:26 PM
Page 48
48
JUVENILE JUSTICE
general finding of greater male involvement in delinquency was unchanged when the focus was restricted to children from broken homes. Boys from broken homes reported more delinquent behavior than did girls from broken homes (p. 164). Canter concluded,This finding gives credence to the proposition that broken homes reduce parental supervision, which in turn may increase involvement in delinquency, particularly among males (p. 164). In the Pittsburgh Youth Study, Browning and Loeber (1999) found that the demographic variable most strongly related to delinquency was having a broken family. According to the Forum on Child and Family Statistics (2006), Living with two parents who are married to each other is associated with more favorable outcomes for children. However, the proportion of children under the age of 18 years living with two married parents fell from 77% in 1980 to 67% in 2005. There is also, however, some evidence that there may be more social organization and cohesion, guidance, and control in happy one-parent families than in two-parent families marked by discord. It may be that the broken family is not as important a determinant of delinquency as are the events leading to the broken home. Disruption, disorganization, and tension, which may lead to a broken family or may prevail in a family staying intact for the childrens sake, may be more important causative factors of delinquency than the actual breakup (Browning & Loeber, 1999; Emery, 1982; Stern, 1964). According to Rebellon (2002), broken homes are strongly associated with a range of delinquent behaviors, including minor status offenses and more severe property/violent offenses. However, several factors, including divorce/separation, recent remarriage, and the long-term presence of a stepparent, appear to be related to different types of delinquency. Not all authorities agree that broken homes have a major influence on delinquency. Wells and Rankin (1991), reviewing the relationship between broken homes and delinquency, concluded that there is some impact of broken homes on delinquency, although it appears to be moderately weak, especially for serious crime. Bumphus and Anderson (1999) concluded that traditional measures of family structure relate more to criminal patterns of Caucasians than to those of African Americans. Rebellon (2002) found that single-parenthood per se does not appear to be associated with delinquency; rather, certain types of changes in family composition appear to be related to delinquency. Demuth and Brown (2004), using data from the 1995 National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health, extended prior research investigating the effects of growing up in two-parent versus single-mother families by also examining delinquency in single-father families. The results indicate that juveniles in single-parent families are significantly more delinquent than their counterparts residing with two biological married parents. However, the authors found that family processes fully account for the higher levels of delinquency exhibited by adolescents from single-father versus single-mother families. In 2005, among children under the age of 18 years, 23% lived with only their mother, 5% lived with only their father, and 4% lived with neither of their parents (Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2006). The American family unit has changed considerably during the past 50 years. Large and extended families, composed of various relatives living close together, at one time provided mutual aid, comfort, and protection. Today, the family is smaller and has relinquished many of its socialization functions to specialized organizations and agencies that exert a great amount of influence in the education, training, care, guidance, and protection of children. This often results in normative conflict for children who find their attitudes differing from the views and standards of their parents. These changes have brought more economic wealth to the family, but they may have made it more difficult for parents to give constructive guidance and protection to their children. In addition, the rise of mixed families, in which each parent
7/24/2007
4:26 PM
Page 49
Chapter 3
49
Problems with children occur in families of all races and social classes.
brings children of his or her own into the family setting, may result in conflicts among the children or between one parent and the children of the other parent. Over the years, there has been considerable interest in children with working parents who have come to be known as latchkey children. This term generally describes school-age children who return home from school to an empty house. Estimates indicate that there may be as many as 10 million children left unsupervised after school (Willwerth, 1993). These children are often left to fend for themselves before going to school in the morning, after school in the afternoon, and on school holidays when parents are working or otherwise occupied. This has resulted in older (but still rather young) children being required to care for younger siblings during these periods and is also a factor in the increasing number of children found in video arcades, in shopping malls, on the Internet, and in other areas without adult supervision at a relatively young age. Although the vast majority of latchkey children appear to survive relatively unscathed, some become involved in illegal or marginally legal activity without their parents knowledge (Coohey, 1998; Flannery, Williams, & Vazsonyi, 1999; Vander Ven, Cullen, Carrozza, & Wright, 2001; Vandivere, Tout, Capizzano, & Zaslow, 2003). There is little doubt that family structure is related to delinquency in a variety of ways. However, relying on official statistics to assess the extent of that relationship may be misleading. It may be that the police, probation officers, and judges are more likely to deal officially with juveniles from broken homes than to deal officially with juveniles from more ideal family backgrounds. Several authorities, including Fenwick (1982) and Simonsen (1991), have concluded that the decision to drop charges against a juvenile depends, first, on the seriousness of the offense and the juveniles prior record and, second, on the juveniles family ties. Youths are likely to be released if they are affiliated with a conventional domestic network (Fenwick, 1982, p. 450). When parents can be easily contacted by the police and show an active interest in their children and an apparent willingness to cooperate with the police, the likelihood is much greater
7/24/2007
4:26 PM
Page 50
50
JUVENILE JUSTICE
(especially in the case of minor offenses) that a juvenile will be warned and released to parental custody (Bynum & Thompson, 1999, p. 364). Fader, Harris, Jones, and Poulin (2001) concluded that, in Philadelphia at least, juvenile court decision makers appear to give extra weight to child and family functioning factors in deciding on dispositions for first-time offenders. It often appears that the difference between placing juveniles in institutions and allowing them to remain in the family setting depends more on whether the family is intact than on the quality of life within the family. Concentrating on the broken family as the major or only cause of delinquency fails to take into account the vast number of juveniles from broken homes who do not become delinquent as well as the vast number of juveniles from intact families who do become delinquent (Krisberg, 2005, p. 73).
Education
Schools, education, and families are very much interdependent and play a major role in shaping the future of children. In our society, education is recognized as one of the most important paths to success. The educational system occupies an important position and has taken over many functions formerly performed by the family. The total social well-being of children, including health, recreation, morality, and academic advancement, is a concern of educators. Some of the lofty objectives espoused by various educational commissions were summarized by Schafer and Polk (1967) more than a quarter century ago: All children and youth must be given those skills, attitudes, and values that will enable them to perform adult activities and meet adult obligations. Public education must ensure the maximum development of general knowledge, intellectual competence, psychological stability, social skills, and social awareness so that each new generation will be enlightened, individually strong, yet socially and civically responsible. (p. 224) The child is expected by his or her parents, and by society, to succeed in life, but the child from a poor family, where values and opportunities differ from those of white middle-class America, encounters many difficulties early in school. Studies indicate that students from middle-class family backgrounds are more likely to have internalized the values of competitiveness, politeness, and deferred gratification that are likely to lead to success in the public schools (Braun, 1976). Braun (1976) also found that teachers expectations were influenced by physical attractiveness, socioeconomic status, race, gender, name, and older siblings. Lower expectations existed for children who came from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, belonged to minority groups, and had older siblings who had been unsuccessful in school. Alwin and Thornton (1984) found that the socioeconomic status of the family was related to academic success both during early childhood and during adolescence. Blair, Blair, and Madamba (1999) found that social classbased characteristics were the best predictors of educational performance among minority students. Numerous studies show that although some difficulties may be partially attributable to early experience in the family and neighborhood, others are created by the educational system itself (see In Practice 3.3). The label of low achiever, slow learner, or learning disabled may be attached shortly after, and sometimes even before, entering the first grade based on the performance of other family members who preceded the child in school. Teachers may expect little academic success as a result. Identification as a slow learner often sets into motion a series of
7/24/2007
4:26 PM
Page 51
Chapter 3
51
reactions by the student, his or her peers, and the school itself that may lead to negative attitudes, frustrations, and eventually a climate where school becomes a highly unsatisfactory and bitter experience. Kelley (1977) found that early labeling in the school setting had a lasting impact on childrens educational careers and that such labeling occurred with respect to children with both very great and very limited academic potential. Kvaraceus (1945) believed that although school might not directly cause delinquency, it might present conditions that foster delinquent behavior. When aspirations for success in the educational system are blocked, the students self-assessment, assessment of the value of education, and assessment of the schools role in his or her life may progressively deteriorate. Hawkins and Listiner (1987) indicated that low cognitive ability, poor early academic performance, low attachment to school, low commitment to academic pursuits, and association with delinquent peers appear to contribute to delinquency. Unless the student is old enough to drop out of this highly frustrating experience, the only recourse may be to seek others within the school who find themselves in the same circumstances. Thornberry, Moore, and Christenson (1985) noted that dropping out of school was positively related to delinquency and later crime over both the long and short terms. Although the presence of others who share the frustrating experience of the educational system may be a satisfactory alternative to dropping out of school, the collective alienation may lead to delinquent behavior. Rodney and Mupier (1999) found that being suspended from school, being expelled from school, and being held back in school increased the likelihood of being in juvenile detention among adolescent African American males. Lotz and Lee (1999) found that negative school experiences are significant predictors of delinquent behavior among white teenagers. Jarjoura (1996) found that dropping out of school is more likely to be associated with greater involvement in delinquency for middle-class youth than for lower-class youth. Most theorists agree that negative experiences in school act as powerful forces that help to project juveniles into delinquency. Achievement and self-esteem will be satisfied in the peer group or gang. In many ways, the school contributes to delinquency by failing to provide a meaningful curriculum to lower-class youth in terms of future employment opportunities. There is a growing recognition by many juveniles of the fact that satisfying educational requirements is no guarantee of occupational success (Monk-Turner, 1990). More than a quarter century ago, Polk and Schafer (1972) noted that the role of the school was rarely acknowledged as producing these unfavorable conditions. Instead of recognizing and attacking deficiencies in the learning structure of the schools, educational authorities place the blame on delinquent youth and thus further alienate them from school. In summarizing, Polk and Schafer listed the following as unfavorable experiences: (1) Lower socioeconomicclass children enter the formal educational process with a competitive disadvantage due to their social backgrounds; (2) The physical condition and educational climate of a school located in working class areas may not be conducive for the learning process; (3) Youths may be labeled early and placed in ability groups where expectations have been reduced; and (4) Curriculum and recognition of achievement revolve around the college bound youth and not the youth who intends to culminate his educational pursuit by graduating from high school. (p. 189) Yablonsky and Haskell (1988), Battistich and Hom (1997), Yogan (2000), and KowaleskiJones (2000) all have discussed how school experiences may be related to delinquency. First, if
7/24/2007
4:26 PM
Page 52
52
JUVENILE JUSTICE
In Practice 3.3
Forum Tackles Discipline, At-Risk Youths

group of MiamiDade educators, politicians, and juvenile justice officials held a forum on Friday to discuss preventive measures to decrease racial disparities in school discipline. At the center of the debate, held inside the MiamiDade School Board auditorium, was what most leaders called a poorly defined and overused zero-tolerance policy in the district and how it has resulted in a staggering number of arrests, expulsions, and suspensions due to minor offenses. Were throwing away children at an early age by funneling them into the juvenile justice system, said Carlos Martinez, chief assistant MiamiDade public defender. I would have been considered delinquent for many of the things I did as a child. Martinez gave the opening remarks to the forum titled Improving Educational Outcomes and Reducing Disparities in Arrests and Discipline by Doing What Works. The session was the third in a series that explored the linkages between school failure, zero-tolerance polices, race, and delinquency and their relevance to the Supreme Courts decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Last year, when MiamiDade schools police arrested about 2,500 students, black students accounted for more than half of those arrests, though they only make up 28 percent of county enrollment, district records show. Blacks also accounted for more than half of the 29,000 students sent home on outdoor suspension. Our primary mission is to chart a course to reduce racial disparities in suspensions and arrests, so all our children can share in the American dream, said event organizer Bennett H. Brummer, MiamiDade public defender. Throughout the four-hour-long dialogue, officials stressed the importance of prevention before punishment and the role that early intervention plays in making that philosophy a reality. Were aggressively implementing measures to address whats going on in the lives of kids who are exhibiting bad behavior, said schools Police Chief Gerald Darling. Using us as the bullies and bad guys does not fix the problem. Darling has implemented a civil citation program, which officials say will cut down on most of the arrests. Under the program, first- and second-time offenders will get citations for minor offenses such as disorderly conduct and trespassing. The district has also proposed a new kind of suspension starting next school year. Suspended students who commit certain violations of the code of conduct will be required to go to alternative centers where theyll be assigned conflict resolution and other forms of anger management intervention. But some officials present suggested that the zero-tolerance policy mandate sending thousands into handcuffs should be restructured as well as the student code of conduct guidelines. We pay for programs that are reactive, argued state NAACP President Adora Obi Nweze. We need to change the zero-tolerance statute. Sharon Frazier-Stephens said the policy has taken a personal toll. My son was one of those kids who fell through the cracks. When he was arrested, no one at the school notified me, said Frazier-Stephens, a volunteer at Miami Norland High. Now hes in a correctional facility.
SOURCE: Bailey, Peter. (2006, April 29). Forum Tackles Discipline, At-Risk Youths. Miami Herald, page 5B. Copyright 2006, The Miami Herald. All rights reserved. Used with permission.
7/24/2007
4:26 PM
Page 53
Chapter 3
53
a child experiences failure at school every day, he or she not only learns little but also becomes frustrated and unhappy. Curricula that do not promise a reasonable opportunity for every child to experience success in some area may, therefore, contribute to delinquency. Second, teaching without relating the subject matter to the needs and aspirations of the student leaves him or her with serious questions regarding the subject matters relevancy. Third, for many lower-class children, school is a prison or a babysitting operation where they just pass time. They find little or no activity designed to give pleasure or indicate an interest in their abilities. Fourth, the impersonal school atmosphere, devoid of close relationships, may contribute toward the child seeking relationships in peer groups or gangs outside of the educational setting. In a similar vein, Polk (1984) contended that the number of marginal juveniles is growing and agreed that this is so not only because less successful students have unpleasant school experiences but also because their future occupational aspirations are severely limited. In 1981, Zimmerman, Rich, Keilitz, and Broder investigated the relationship between learning disabilities and delinquency. They concluded that proportionately more adjudicated delinquent children than public school children were learning disabled, although self-report data indicated no significant differences in the incidence of delinquent activity. They hypothesized that the greater proportion of learning-disabled youth among adjudicated juvenile delinquents may be accounted for by differences in the way such children are treated within the juvenile justice system, rather than by differences in their delinquent behavior (Zimmerman et al., 1981, p. 1). In another study, Smykla and Willis (1981) found that 62% of the children under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court they studied were either learning disabled or mentally retarded. They concluded, The findings of this study are in agreement with previous incidence studies that have demonstrated a correlation between juvenile delinquency and mental retardation. These results also forcefully demonstrate the need for special education strategies to be included in any program of delinquency prevention and control (p. 225). Others, including Brownfield (1990), also have concluded that poor school performance and delinquency are related. Browning and Loeber (1999) found that low IQ was related to delinquency independent of socioeconomic status, ethnicity, neighborhood, and impulsivity. The emptiness that some students feel toward school and education demands our attention. Rebellion, retreatism, and delinquency may be a response to the false promises of education or simply a response to being turned off again in an environment where this has occurred too frequently. Without question, curriculum and caliber of instruction need to be relevant for all children. Social and academic skill remediation may be one means of preventing learning-disabled children from becoming involved in delinquency (Winters, 1997). Beyond these primary educational concerns, the school may currently be the only institution where humanism and concern for the individual are expressed in an otherwise bleak environment. Even this one-time sanctuary is under attack by gang members involved with drugs and guns. In some cases, the question is not whether a child can learn in school but rather whether he or she can get to school and back home alive. Armed security guards, barred windows, and metal detectors have given many schools the appearance of being the prisons that some children have always found them to be. Although student fears of being attacked at school have declined (the percentage of children who feared attack at school or on the way to and from school decreased significantly from 12% in 1995 to 6% in 2003), statistics vary among racial groups (Child Trends DataBank, 2006). As Figure 3.1 shows, larger percentages of African American and Hispanic students feared attacks than did white students. This may be a direct result of the geographic area in which these schools are located, an impersonal school atmosphere, and/or
7/24/2007
4:26 PM
Page 54
54
JUVENILE JUSTICE
a lack of support or understanding that African American and Hispanic students feel in the school environment. Fear of attack at school or on the way to and from school may cause some students to miss days of school and may negatively affect academic performance. Fear at school can create an unhealthy school environment, affect students participation in class, and lead to more negative behaviors among students (Child Trends DataBank, 2006). Furthermore, students in lower grades are more likely to fear for their safety at school and on the way to and from school than are students in higher grades. In 2003, 10% of sixth-grade students had such fears, compared with 4% of twelfth-grade students (Child Trends DataBank, 2006). In addition, students in urban schools are roughly twice as likely as students in suburban or rural schools to fear being attacked at school or while traveling to and from school (Child Trends DataBank, 2006). In another survey of American schoolchildren (Institute of Education Sciences, 2005), it was found that improvements in school safety have occurred over the past dozen or so years. The violent crime victimization rate declined from 48 per 1,000 A significant number of juveniles annually report experiencing students in 1992 to 28 per 1,000 students fear of attack while at school, on the way to school, or on the way in 2003. Despite the decrease, violence, home from school. theft, bullying, drugs, and weapons are still widespread. In 2003, there were nearly three quarters of a million violent crimes and more than a million crimes of theft committed against students between the ages of 12 and 18 years (Institute of Education Sciences, 2005). Events of the past few years have raised national concern about school safety. A chronology of the events leading to this concern was presented by the Indianapolis Star (Indystar.com, 2006): October 2, 2006: Charles Carl Roberts, 32, took 10 girls hostage in an Amish school in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania, killing five of them before killing himself. September 29, 2006: Eric Hainstock, 15, took two guns into his Cazenovia, Wisconsin, school and fatally shot the principal before being captured and arrested. September 27, 2006: Duane Morrison, 53, took six girls hostage at Platte Canyon High School in Bailey, Colorado, molesting them and holding them for hours before fatally shooting one girl and then himself.
7/24/2007
4:26 PM
Page 55
Chapter 3
55
Figure 3.1
50 45 40 35 30 Percent 25 20 15
Percentages of Students Fearing Attack at School
10.7 10 6.1 5 0 Total Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black 4.1
9.5 5.0
Hispanic
Other1
Source: DeVoe, J. F., Peter, K., Kaufman, P., Miller, A., Noonan, M., Snyder, T. D., & Baum, K. (2004). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2004 (NCES 2005 -002/NCJ 205290, U.S. Departments of Education and Justice). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Table 12.1.
1
Other includes those students who selected another race or more than one race. Hispanic students are excluded.
November 8, 2005: Assistant principal Ken Bruce was killed and two other administrators were seriously wounded when Kenny Bartley, a 15-year-old student, opened fire in a Jacksboro, Tennessee, high school. August 24, 2006: Christopher Williams, 27, went to Essex Elementary School in Vermont, and when he could not find his ex-girlfriend, a teacher, he shot and killed one teacher and wounded another. Earlier, he had killed the ex-girlfriends mother. He attempted suicide but survived and was arrested. March 21, 2005: Jeff Weise, 16, shot to death his grandfather and his grandfathers girlfriend and then went to his high school in Red Lake, Minnesota, where he killed a security guard, a teacher, and five students, and wounded seven others, before killing himself. These events and others emphasize the importance of events occurring at or near schools of the students involved. It is difficult to determine the impact of these events on the students actually involved and on those who become aware of the events through the national media.
7/24/2007
4:26 PM
Page 56
56
JUVENILE JUSTICE
Social Class
During the 1950s and 1960s, a number of studies emerged focusing on the relationship between social class and delinquency (Cloward & Ohlin, 1960; Cohen, 1955; Merton, 1955; Miller, 1958). These studies indicated that socioeconomic status was a major contributing factor in delinquency. According to further research, the actual relationship between social class and delinquency may be that social class is important in determining whether a particular juvenile becomes part of the official statistics, not in determining whether a juvenile will actually commit a delinquent act (Dentler & Monroe, 1961; Short & Nye, 1958; Tittle, Villemez, & Smith, 1978). Most studies of self-reported delinquency have shown little or no difference by social class in the actual commission of delinquent acts. Morash and Chesney-Lind (1991), however, did find evidence that lower-class youth report more delinquency, and Elliott and Ageton (1980) found that lower-class juveniles may be more likely to commit serious offenses. Ackerman (1998) also concluded that crime is a function of poverty, at least in smaller communities. Research indicates that middle-class youth are involved in delinquency to a far greater extent than was suspected previously. Scott and Vaz (1963), for example, found that middle-class delinquents adhere to specific patterns of activities, standards of conduct, and values different from their parents. Young people a generation ago had more in common with their parents, including attitudes and outlook on life. However, todays middle-class youth are securely entrenched in a youth culture that is often apart from, or in conflict with, the dominant adult culture. Within the youth culture, juveniles are open to the influence of their peers and generally conform to whatever behavior patterns prevail. Scott and Vaz identified partying, joyriding, drinking, gambling, and various types of sexual behavior as dominant forms of conduct within the middle-class youth culture. By participating in and conforming to the youth culture, status and social success are achieved through peer approval. Scott and Vaz argued that the bulk of middle-class delinquency occurs in the course of customary nondelinquent activities but moves Although more males than females are arrested for to the realm of delinquency as the result of delinquency, the number of female delinquents has increased a need to be different or start something significantly during recent years. new. Wooden and Blazak (2001) noted
7/24/2007
4:26 PM
Page 57
Chapter 3
57
that these trends continue at the present time: In the 1990s research began revealing what those who had survived the 1980s already knew: The safe cocoon of middle-class youth was eroding (pp. 45). In Youth Crisis: Growing Up in a High-Risk Society, Davis (1999) pointed out that adolescence is a period of transition from childhood to adulthood. Each of the institutions of this transition (e.g., the family, education, employment) is in a state of turmoil, causing adolescents to be in a state of crisis. Accessibility to social objects for participating in the youth culture is an important part of delinquent behavior. Social objects, such as cars, the latest styles, alcoholic beverages, and drugs, are frequently part of middle-class delinquency. Peer recognition for male middle-class youth may be a reason for senseless acts of destruction of property. Acts of vandalism in which ones bravery can be displayed for peer approval are somewhat different from the violent behavior often seen in lower-class youth, who may demonstrate their bravery by gang fights/ shootings, muggings, robbery, and other crimes against people. Wooden and Blazak (2001) indicated that suburban youth are often told to act like adults but are not given the privileges of adulthood, forcing them into a subculture characterized by delinquency-producing focal concerns (p. 19). Some end up in trouble-oriented male groups, and they sometimes get involved in violent crime to conform to group norms. More typically, those in middle-class coed groups get involved in petty theft and drug use. Although most evidence indicates that juveniles from all social classes may become delinquent (Elrod & Ryder, 2005, p. 61), the subculture theorists maintain that many delinquents grow up in lower-class slum areas. According to Cloward and Ohlin (1960), the type of delinquency exhibited depends in part on the type of slum in which juveniles grow up. The slum that produces professional criminals is characterized by the close-knit lives and activities of the people in the community. Constant exposure to delinquent and criminal processes coupled with an admiration of criminals provides the model and impetus for future delinquency and criminality. Cloward and Ohlin described this as a criminal subculture in which juveniles are encouraged and supported by well-established conventional and criminal institutions. Going one step further, Miller (1958), in his study of lower- and middle-class norms, values, and behavioral expectations, concluded that a delinquent subculture is inherent in lower-class standards and goals. The desirability of the achievement of status through toughness and smartness, as well as the concepts of trouble, excitement, fate, and autonomy, is interpreted differently depending on ones socioeconomic status. Miller concluded that by adhering to lowerclass norms, pressure toward delinquency is inevitable and is rewarded and respected in the lower-class value system. Lawbreaking is not in and of itself a deliberate rejection of middleclass values, but it automatically violates certain moral and legal standards of the middle class. Miller believed that lower-class youth who become delinquent are primarily conforming to traditions and values held by their families, peers, and neighbors. As indicated earlier, Wooden and Blazak (2001) used this same approach to describe middle-class delinquency during the 21st century. In summarizing the findings with respect to the relationship between social class and delinquency, Johnson (1980) concluded that some conceptualizations of social class may have been inappropriate and that a more appropriate distinction is the one between the underclass and the earning class. His results suggest, however, that even given this distinction, there is no reason to expect that social class will emerge as a major correlate of delinquent behavior, no matter how it is measured (p. 86). Current evidence presented by Wooden and Blazak (2001) seems to indicate that this may well be the case, as does the paucity of current research in this area.
7/24/2007
4:26 PM
Page 58
58
JUVENILE JUSTICE
Still, the concept of the underclass (the extremely poor population that has been abandoned in the inner city as a result of the exodus of the middle class) seems to attract continuing attention (Bursik & Grasmick, 1995; Jarjoura, Triplett, & Brinker, 2002). As the more affluent withdraw from inner-city communities, they also tend to withdraw political support for public spending designed to benefit those communities. They do not want to pay taxes for schools they do not use, and they are not likely to use them because they find those left behind too frightening to be around (Ehrenreich, 1990). Those left behind are largely excluded, on a permanent basis, from the primary labor market and mainstream occupations. Economically motivated delinquency is one way of coping with this disenfranchisement to maintain a short-term cash flow. Because many children growing up in these circumstances see no relationship between attaining an education and future employment, they tend to drop out of school prior to graduation. Some then become involved in theft as a way of meeting economic needs, often as members of gangs that may become institutionalized in underclass neighborhoods (Bursik & Grasmick, 1995, p. 122). Perhaps Chambliss (1973) summed up the impact of social class on delinquency best some years ago when he concluded that the results of some delinquents activities are seen as less serious than others as the result of class in American society: No representative of the upper class drew up the operations chart for the police which led them to look in the ghettoes and on street cornerswhich led them to see the demeanor of lower class youth as troublesome and that of upper middle class youth as tolerable. Rather, the procedures simply developed from experienceexperience with irate and influential upper middle class parents insisting that their sons vandalism was simply a prank and his drunkenness only a momentary sowing of wild oatsexperience with cooperative or indifferent, powerless lower class parents who acquiesced to the laws definition of their sons behavior. (p. 30)
Gangs
The influence of juvenile gangs is so important, and has received so much attention in the recent past, that we have devoted a separate chapter (Chapter 12) to the subject. In this section, we simply say that gangs are an important factor in the development of delinquent behavior, not only in inner-city areas but also increasingly in suburban and rural areas.
Drugs
Although drugs clearly have physical effects on those who use them, drug use is also a social act. We have more to say about drug use later in the book, but for now a brief discussion of the topic is in order. Our society is characterized by high rates of drug use and abuse, and it should not be surprising to find such use and abuse among juveniles. The manufacture, distribution, and use of illicit drugs seem to be on the rise, and one new drug in particular, methamphetamine (meth, ice, crystal, glass, or speed) has experienced a tremendous resurgence in popularity during the past few years (Scaramella, 2000). In a study reported by the National Center for Education Statistics (1997), 30% of sixth- through twelfth-grade students surveyed reported that alcohol and marijuana were available in their schools, and 20% said that other drugs were
7/24/2007
4:26 PM
Page 59
Chapter 3
59
Gangs from Latin America have become increasingly common in the United States.
available. One third said that they had seen other students under the influence of alcohol at school, and 27% said that they had seen students under the influence of other drugs. Another study found that as many as 51% of high school seniors reported using illicit drugs at some time (Cohn, 1999). One should keep in mind that these figures apply to students still in school and do not include data from those who have dropped out of school. A 1985 study by Fagan and Pabon (1990) found that 54% of dropouts reported using illicit drugs during the past year, as compared with 30% of students. Addiction to alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs, and illicit drugs frequently occurs during early adolescence, and Wade and Pevalin (2005), among others, have identified temporal associations between nuisance delinquency and both alcohol and marijuana use. According to Watson (2004), research over the past 20 years has established the correlation of substance abuse to juvenile delinquency. The problem of substance use is even more pronounced among adolescents in contact with the juvenile justice system. Survey research indicates that more than half of juvenile male arrestees tested positive for at least one drug, and it appears that 60% to 87% of female offenders need substance abuse treatment. Marijuana appears to be the drug of choice among youthful offenders, growing from roughly 15% in 1991 to 62% in 1999. There has, of course, been a good deal written about the relationship between illegal drug use and crime. This has been particularly true since the mid-1980s when crack, a cocaine-based stimulant drug, first appeared. As Inciardi, Horowitz, and Pottieger (1993) noted, Cocaine is the drug of primary concern in examining drug/crime relationships among adolescents today.
7/24/2007
4:26 PM
Page 60
60
JUVENILE JUSTICE
It is a powerful drug widely available at a cheap price per dose, but its extreme addictiveness can rapidly increase the need for more money (p. 48). Today, this concern has been replaced in many areas by a concern with methamphetamines: Methamphetamine and cocaine have similar behavioral and psychological effects on users. . . . Both psychostimulants spark a rapid accumulation in the brain of the neurotransmitter dopamine, which causes a feeling of euphoria. . . . Tests have found that . . . meth damages the neurons that produce dopamine and seratonin, another neurotransmitter. . . . Cocaine is not neurotoxic. . . . A high from smoking crack cocaine lasts about 2030 minutes. A meth high can last more than 12 hours. . . . Heavy use can also lead to psychotic behavior such as paranoia and hallucinations. Some evidence suggests that chronic meth users tend to be more violent than heavy cocaine users. (Parsons, 1998, p. 4) There is also considerable interest in the relationship between illegal drugs and gangs. For example, it was reported that gang members accounted for 86% of serious delinquent acts, 69% of violent delinquent acts, and 70% of drug sales in Rochester, New York (Cohn, 1999). Possession, sale, manufacture, and distribution of any of a number of illegal drugs are, in themselves, crimes. Purchase and consumption of some legal drugs, such as alcohol and tobacco, by juveniles are also illegal. Juveniles who violate statutes relating to these offenses may be labeled as delinquent or status offenders. Equally important, however, are other illegal acts often engaged in by drug users to support their drug habits. Such offenses are known to include theft, burglary, robbery, and prostitution, among others. It is also possible that use of certain drugs, such as cocaine and its derivatives and amphetamines, is related to the commission of violent crimes, although the exact nature of the relationship between drug abuse and crime is controversial. Some maintain that delinquents are more likely to use drugs than are nondelinquentsthat is, drug use follows rather than precedes delinquencywhereas others argue the opposite (Dawkins, 1997; Thornton, Voight, & Doerner, 1987; Williams, Ayers, & Abbott, 1999). Whatever the nature of the relationship between drug abuse and delinquency, the two are intimately intertwined for some delinquents, whereas drug abuse is not a factor for others. Why some juveniles become drug abusers while others in similar environments avoid such involvement is the subject of a great deal of research. The single most important determinant of drug abuse appears to be the interpersonal relationships in which the juvenile is involved, particularly interpersonal relationships with peers. Drug abuse is a social phenomenon that occurs in social networks accepting, tolerating, and/or encouraging such behavior. Although the available evidence suggests that peer influence is most important, there is also evidence to indicate that juveniles whose parents are involved in drug abuse are more likely to abuse drugs than are juveniles whose parents are not involved in drug abuse. Furthermore, behavior of parents and peers appears to be more important in drug abuse than do the values and beliefs espoused (Schinke & Gilchrist, 1984; Williams et al., 1999). There is no way of knowing how many juveniles suffering from school-, parent-, or peerrelated depression and/or the general ambiguity surrounding adolescence turn to drugs as a means of escape, but the prevalence of teen suicide, combined with information obtained from self-reports of juveniles, indicates that the numbers are large. Although juvenile involvement with drugs in general apparently declined during the 1980s, it now appears that the trend has been reversed. There is little doubt that such involvement remains a major problem, particularly in light of gang-related drug operations. When gangs invade and take over a community, drugs are sold openly in junior and senior high schools, on street corners, and in shopping
7/24/2007
4:26 PM
Page 61
Chapter 3
61
centers. The same is true of methamphetamines that are manufactured easily and sold inexpensively (Bartollas, 1993, p. 341; Scaramella, 2000). Howell and Decker (1999) suggested that the relationship among gangs, drugs, and violence is complex. Pharmacological effects of drugs can lead to violence, and the high cost of drug use often causes users to support continued use with violent crimes. Finally, violence is common among gangs attempting to protect or expand drug territories.
Physical Factors
In addition to social factors, a number of physical factors are often employed to characterize juvenile delinquents. The physical factors most commonly discussed are age, gender, and race. (All of the data presented in this section are from the Federal Bureau of Investigations [FBI] Crime in the United States for 2004 and 2005 [FBI, 2005, 2006].)
Age
For purposes of discussing official statistics concerning persons under the age of 18 years, we should note that little official action is taken with respect to delinquency under the age of 10 years. Rather than considering the entire age range from birth to 18 years, we are basically reviewing statistics covering an age range from 10 to 18 years. Keep in mind also our earlier observations (Chapter 2) concerning the problems inherent in the use of official statistics as we review the data provided by the FBI. As Table 3.1 indicates, crimes committed by persons under 18 years of age (the maximum age for delinquency in a number of states) declined by roughly 3% between 2004 and 2005. However, murder and nonnegligent manslaughter arrests increased by nearly 20%, robbery arrests increased by slightly more than 11%, and forcible rape arrests decreased by approximately 11% among those under 18 years of age. Table 3.1 also includes statistics on less serious offenses. Considering these offenses, gambling arrests increased by roughly 23% among those under 18 years of age, and weaponsrelated offenses increased by slightly more than 7%. As you can see in Table 3.1, total offenses among those under 15 years of age declined by more than 7% between 2004 and 2005, while similar crimes among those 18 years of age and over increased very slightly (less than 1%). As illustrated in Table 3.2, the total number of persons under the age of 18 years arrested for all crimes decreased 6%, the number of persons in this category arrested for murder and nonnegligent manslaughter increased 16%, and the number arrested for robbery increased roughly 14% between 2001 and 2005. The number arrested for forcible rape decreased 15%, and the number of arrests for auto theft decreased 24%. Comparable figures for those 18 years of age and over all showed some increase with the exception of forcible rape. Among offenses other than index crimes, carrying/possessing weapons (24% increase), offenses against family and children (40% decrease), gambling (37% decrease), embezzlement (40% increase), drunkenness (21% decrease), and vagrancy (109% increase) showed significant changes among those under 18 years of age. Juveniles under the age of 18 years accounted for an estimated 25% of the 2006 U.S. population. Persons in this age group accounted for 15% of violent crime clearances and 26% of property crime clearances (cleared by arrests of suspected perpetrators). Murder (8%) and aggravated assault (13%) show the lowest percentage of juvenile involvement in violent crime, and robbery (Text continues on page 67)
62
Table 3.1
Current Year Over Previous Year Arrest TrendsTotals, 20042005 (9,869 agencies; 2005 estimated population 194,973,254; 2004 estimated population 193,248,637)
Number of Persons Arrested Total All Ages Under 15 Years of Age Under 18 Years of Age 18 Years of Age and Over
Offense Charged 2004 8,975,704 7,698 8,259 +7.3 72 71 1.4 593 711 +19.9 8,997,831 +0.2 451,098 417,492 7.4 1,403,555 1,360,641 3.1 7,572,149 7,105 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004
Percentage Change
Percentage Change
Percentage Change
2005 7,637,190 7,548
Percentage Change +0.9 +6.2
7/24/2007
Totala
Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 16,485 63,691 274,827 278,708 +1.4 12,909 12,649 2.0 37,298 65,841 +3.4 3,319 3,462 +4.3 14,099 15,713 36,995 16,004 2.9 1,050 867 17.4 2,743 2,434 11.3 +11.4 0.8
4:26 PM
Forcible rape
13,742 49,592 237,529
13,570 50,128 241,713
1.3 +1.1 +1.8
Page 62
Robbery
Aggravated assault 193,032 794,116 84,554 82,811 2.1 5,469 4,633 15.3 763,239 3.9 82,359 70,698 14.2 194,273 +0.6 18,667 16,715 10.5 53,508 220,493 22,012
Burglary
50,756 200,866 19,960
5.1 8.9 9.3
139,524 573,623 62,542
143,517 562,373 62,851
+2.9 2.0 +0.5
Larcenytheft
Motor vehicle theft 10,019 362,701 1,081,721 1,050,692 2.9 109,689 368,812 +1.7 17,350 17,049 95,228 10,369 +3.5 3,194 3,182 0.4 1.7 13.2
Arson
5,161 54,733 301,174
5,222 55,853 276,804
+1.2 +2.0 8.1
4,858 307,968 780,547
5,147 312,959 773,888
+5.9 +1.6 0.9
Violent crime
Property crimeb 838,946 843,739 +0.6 68,546
Other assaults
65,257
4.8
160,251
158,891
0.8
678,695
684,848
+0.9
(Continued)
Table 3.1
(Continued)
Offense Charged 2004 80,636 76,353 5.3 503 324 35.6 3,312 2,792 15.7 77,324 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004
Percentage Change
Percentage Change
Percentage Change
2005 73,561
Percentage Change 4.9
7/24/2007
Forgery and counterfeiting 217,421 12,613 85,034 86,393 +1.6 4,327 3,827 11.6 15,616 14,635 6.3 12,820 +1.6 39 47 +20.5 739 797 +7.8 209,228 3.8 909 881 3.1 5,089 4,991 1.9
Fraud
212,332 11,874 69,418
204,237 12,023 71,758
3.8 +1.3 +3.4
4:26 PM
Embezzlement
Stolen property (buying, receiving, possessing) 179,999 107,676 115,803 +7.5 9,010 9,253 +2.7 25,062 180,332 +0.2 30,146 28,456 5.6 68,840 68,010 26,859
Page 63
Vandalism
1.2 +7.2
111,159 82,614
112,322 88,944
+1.0 +7.7
Weapons (carrying, possessing, etc.) 41,761 40,686 2.6 102 99 2.9
Prostitution and commercialized vice 53,672 52,464 2.3 6,005 5,318
859
759
11.6
40,902
39,927
2.4
Sex offenses (except forcible rape and prostitution) 1,054,785 1,097,989 +4.1 20,648
11.4
11,610
10,573
8.9
42,062
41,891
0.4
Drug abuse violations 3,758 3,450 8.2
19,044
7.8
117,095
114,888
1.9
937,690
983,101
+4.8
Gambling
66
84
+27.3
324
398
+22.8
3,434
3,052
11.1
63
(Continued)
Table 3.1
(Continued)
64
2004 81,769 83,428 +2.0 1,273 1,096 13.9 3,734 3,463 7.3 78,035 2005 Percentage Change 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 79,965 Percentage Change Percentage Change Percentage Change +2.5 926,335 904,976 2.3 280 205 26.8 13,003 11,824 9.1 913,332 893,152 2.2 408,373 381,585 414,172 416,240 +0.5 56,253 53,780 4.4 132,445 131,174 374,847 1.8 1,422 1,264 11.1 11,470 10,576 392,438 3.9 9,177 8,180 10.9 88,603 86,328 2.6 7.8 1.0 319,770 370,115 281,727 306,110 364,271 285,066 4.3 1.6 +1.2 17,154 2,484,175 2,531,124 +1.9 68,157 63,253 7.2 17,413 +1.5 976 1,027 +5.2 3,135 245,043 3,173 239,249 +1.2 2.4 14,019 14,240 2,239,132 2,291,875 +1.6 +2.4 1,514 60,682 62,171 +2.5 17,730 17,645 1,710 +12.9 119 76 36.1 0.5 410 60,682 337 62,171 17.8 +2.5 1,104 1,373 +24.4 80,736 76,433 5.3 28,490 26,175 8.1 80,736 76,433 5.3
Offense Charged
Offenses against the family and children
7/24/2007
Driving under the influence
4:26 PM
Liquor laws
Drunkenness
Page 64
Disorderly conduct
Vagrancy
All other offenses (except traffic)
Suspicion
Curfew and loitering law violations
Runaway
SOURCE: Adapted from Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2006). Crime in the United States, 2005. Available: www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius
a. Does not include suspicion. b. Violent crimes are offenses of murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Property crimes are offenses of burglary, larcenytheft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.
Table 3.2
Five-Year Arrest Trends, Totals, 20012005 (9,869 agencies; 2005 estimated population 194,973,254; 2004 estimated population 193,248,637)
Number of Persons Arrested Total All Ages Under 18 Years of Age 18 Years of Age and Over
Offense Charged 8,288,959 7,605 8,176 +7.5 629 728 +15.7 6,976 8,573,824 +3.4 1,385,876 1,303,278 6.0 6,903,083
2001
2005
Percentage Change 2001 2005 2001 2005
Percentage Change
Percentage Change +5.3 7,448 +6.8
7/24/2007
Totala
7,270,546
Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 16,327 63,773 287,870 179,626 720,880 81,860 10,842 375,575 993,208 790,255 71,796 213,970 13,706 75,415 12,763 83,855 197,736 71,517 0.4 7.6 6.9 +11.2 808,673 +2.3 1,003,251 +1.0 373,631 0.5 56,909 309,409 143,353 3,807 5,506 1,317 16,633 9,949 8.2 5,822 83,025 +1.4 26,007 720,730 * 221,373 188,291 19,675 5,140 56,742 262,047 156,493 2,629 4,779 796 13,963 189,547 +5.5 56,207 48,941 282,224 2.0 39,023 37,229 4.6 12.9 14.9 24.3 11.7 0.3 15.3 +9.2 30.9 13.2 39.6 16.1 67,748 +6.2 14,495 16,445 +13.5 15,483 5.2 2,762 2,340 15.3
Forcible rape
13,565 49,278 248,847 123,419 499,507 55,853 5,020 318,666 683,799 646,902 67,989 208,464 12,389 58,782
13,143 51,303 244,995 140,606 532,439 63,350 4,809 316,889 741,204 652,180 68,888 192,957 11,967 69,892
3.1 +4.1 1.5 +13.9 +6.6 +13.4 4.2 0.6 +8.4 +0.8 +1.3 7.4 3.4 +18.9
4:26 PM
Robbery
Aggravated assault
Page 65
Burglary
Larcenytheft
Motor vehicle theft
Arson
Violent crime
Property crimeb
Other assaults
Forgery and counterfeiting
Fraud
Embezzlement
Stolen property (buying, receiving, possessing) 167,182
Vandalism
171,439
+2.5
66,826
64,660
3.2
100,356
106,779
+6.4
65
(Continued)
Table 3.2
(Continued)
66
Number of Persons Arrested Total All Ages Under 18 Years of Age 18 Years of Age and Over 2001 95,711 114,538 +19.7 21,702 26,844 +23.7 74,009 87,694 2005 Percentage Change 2001 2005 2001 2005 Percentage Change Percentage Change +18.5 39,139 43,308 +10.7 687 841 +22.4 38,452 42,467 +10.4 52,520 50,378 4.1 10,945 9,733 11.1 41,575 40,645 2.2 919,547 4,396 87,150 78,901 9.5 5,652 3,401 3,661 16.7 312 426 +36.5 39.8 1,062,638 +15.6 117,577 109,552 6.8 801,970 4,084 81,498 953,086 3,235 75,500 +18.8 20.8 7.4 847,303 386,431 412,931 359,245 15,720 2,201,664 2,240 80,326 80,029 2,386 +6.5 0.4 2,396,884 +8.9 19,886 +26.5 367,634 +2.3 102,717 1,532 240,466 786 80,326 373,325 9.6 13,363 358,417 7.2 88,779 829,098 2.1 12,289 10,699 76,849 10,570 117,123 3,202 219,638 295 80,029 12.9 13.4 20.9 +14.0 +109.0 8.7 62.5 0.4 835,014 297,652 399,568 256,528 14,188 1,961,198 1,454 818,399 281,568 362,755 250,511 16,684 2,177,246 2,091 2.0 5.4 9.2 2.3 +17.6 +11.0 +43.8 85,769 72,262 15.7 85,769 72,262 15.7
Offense Charged
Weapons (carrying, possessing, etc.)
7/24/2007
Prostitution and commercialized vice
Sex offenses (except forcible rape and prostitution)
4:26 PM
Drug abuse violations
Gambling
Page 66
Liquor laws
Drunkenness
Disorderly conduct
Vagrancy
Suspicion
Curfew and loitering law violations
Runaway
*Less than one-tenth of 1%.
7/24/2007
4:26 PM
Page 67
Chapter 3
67
(Text continued from page 61) (24%) shows the highest. With respect to other index crimes, juveniles appear to be overrepresented in burglaries (26%), larcenytheft (26%), motor vehicle theft (24%), and arson (50%), especially when we consider the fact that, for all practical purposes, we are dealing only with juveniles between the ages of 10 and 18 years (approximately 17% of the nations population). It is sometimes interesting to compare short-term trends, such as those in Table 3.2, with trends over the longer term. Ten-year arrest trends (19962005) show a significant decrease in total crime rates among those under 18 years of age (25%) and also show a significant decrease in both violent crimes (25%) and property crimes (44%) (Table 3.3). Most notable here is the considerable decrease (nearly 47%) in murder/nonnegligent manslaughter. Only prostitutionrelated offenses showed a significant increase.
Gender
As indicated in Table 3.4, total crime in the under-18-years-of-age category declined over the 5-year period between 2001 and 2005 by roughly 7% to 8% among males and by roughly 2% among females. However, murder/nonnegligent manslaughter and robbery among both genders increased significantly during the same time period. Overall, violent crime decreased slightly among males under the age of 18 years and increased slightly among females in the same age group, and property crime decreased among both groups. Weapons offenses increased significantly among both males and females, as did gambling and vagrancy. Prostitution-related offenses also increased significantly among females under 18 years of age over the 5-year period in question. Historically, we have observed three to four arrests of juvenile males for every arrest of a juvenile female. During the period from 2001 to 2005, this ratio changed considerably so that juvenile females now account for roughly 42% of arrests of those under 18 years of age (see Table 3.4). The total number of arrests of males under age 18 decreased 8%, and the total number of arrests of females in the same age group decreased roughly 2%. Considering the index crimes, we note that among those under age 18, arrests for violent crimes remained nearly constant for males but increased very slightly for females. Considering all crimes, we note an increase in the number of females arrested for murder and nonnegligent manslaughter (20%), robbery (23%), other assaults (16%), weapons-related offenses (27%), prostitution-related offenses (39%), gambling (39%), and vagrancy (181%). According to Chesney-Lind (1999), females have been largely overlooked by those interested in juvenile justice, and indeed many of their survival mechanisms (e.g., running away when confronted with abusers) have been criminalized. It appears that the juvenile justice network does not always act in the best interests of female juveniles because it often ignores their unique problems (Holsinger, 2000). Still, the number of girls engaging in problematic behavior is increasing, and it may well be that we need to develop treatment methods that address their specific problems. For example, a study conducted by Ellis, OHara, and Sowers (1999) found that troubled female adolescents have a profile distinctly different from that of males. The female group was characterized as abused, self-harmful, and social, whereas the male group was seen as aggressive, destructive, and asocial. The authors concluded that different treatment modalities (more supportive and more comprehensive in nature) may need to be developed to treat troubled female adolescents. Johnson (1998) maintained that the increasing number of delinquent females can be addressed only by a multiagency approach based on nationwide and systemwide cooperation. Peters and Peterss (1998) findings seem to provide support for Johnsons proposal. They (Text continues on page 73)
68
Number of Persons Arrested Total All Ages Under 18 Years of Age 18 Years of Age and Over 1996 8,619,699 9,564 7,989 16.5 1,388 739 46.8 8,176 8,244,321 4.4 1,703,500 1,278,948 24.9 6,916,199 2005 Percentage Change 1996 2005 1996 2005 6,965,373 7,250 Percentage Change Percentage Change +0.7 11.3 18,745 80,980 315,405 220,798 905,963 100,318 11,598 424,694 1,238,677 756,129 72,103 255,162 10,152 91,832 82,771 12,087 193,539 70,738 1.9 24.2 +19.1 9.9 737,475 2.5 965,442 22.1 372,962 12.2 76,032 453,872 137,850 5,433 6,947 880 26,647 9,716 16.2 6,506 82,160 18.1 42,957 19,755 4,915 56,889 254,899 142,957 2,600 4,779 751 13,902 692,593 23.6 319,161 182,813 180,973 18.0 85,248 47,416 282,003 10.6 46,124 36,967 19.9 44.4 42.7 54.0 24.5 25.2 43.8 +3.7 52.1 31.2 14.7 47.8 67,841 16.2 25,318 16,791 33.7 15,129 19.3 3,202 2,392 25.3 15,543 55,662 269,281 135,550 586,802 57,361 5,092 348,662 784,805 618,279 66,670 248,215 9,272 65,185 12,737 51,050 245,036 133,557 509,780 62,405 4,801 316,073 710,543 594,518 68,138 188,760 11,336 68,869 18.1 8.3 9.0 1.5 13.1 +8.8 5.7 9.3 9.5 3.8 +2.2 24.0 +22.3 +5.7 190,069 168,366 11.4 87,907 63,697 27.5 102,162 104,669 +2.5
Table 3.3
Ten-Year Arrest Trends, Totals, 19962005 (8,009 agencies; 2005 estimated population 178,017,991; 1996 estimated population 159,290,470)
Offense Charged
7/24/2007
Totala
Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter
Forcible rape
4:26 PM
Robbery
Aggravated assault
Page 68
Burglary
Larcenytheft
Motor vehicle theft
Arson
Violent crime
Property crimeb
Other assaults
Forgery and counterfeiting
Fraud
Embezzlement
Stolen property (buying, receiving, possessing)
Vandalism
(Continued)
Table 3.3 (Continued)
Number of Persons Arrested Total All Ages Under 18 Years of Age 18 Years of Age and Over
Offense Charged 123,016 112,054 8.9 31,067 26,834 13.6 91,949 85,220
1996
2005
Percentage Change 1996 2005 1996 2005
Percentage Change
Weapons (carrying, possessing, etc.) 48,936 41,641 14.9 723 870 +20.3 48,213
7/24/2007
Prostitution and commercialized vice 56,484 52,410 7.2 10,620 10,437 1.7 45,864
40,771
15.4
4:26 PM
Sex offenses (except forcible rape and prostitution) 830,684 6,352 84,459 72,623 14.0 4,839 3,067 3,446 45.7 563 395 29.8 36.6 1,034,844 +24.6 117,400 106,150 9.6
41,973
8.5
713,284 5,789 79,620
928,694 3,051 69,556
+30.2 47.3 12.6
Page 69
Gambling
Offenses against the family and children 877,727 364,792 446,767 420,232 16,424 2,062,908 4,025 119,407 87,658 2,569 2,269,707 +10.0 36.2 26.6 17,376 +5.8 379,439 9.7 335,730 24.9 14,821 112,697 1,998 264,418 1,453 119,407 348,974 4.3 95,686 816,243 7.0 11,000 10,550 76,756 9,094 116,422 1,395 220,050 360 87,658
4.1 19.8 38.6 +3.3 30.2 16.8 75.2 26.6
866,727 269,106 431,946 307,535 14,426 1,798,490 2,572
805,693 272,218 326,636 263,017 15,981 2,049,657 2,209
7.0 +1.2 24.4 14.5 +10.8 +14.0 14.1
Liquor laws
Drunkenness
Disorderly conduct
Vagrancy
Suspicion
Curfew and loitering law violations 122,693 68,796
Runaway
43.9
122,693
68,796
43.9
SOURCE: Adapted from FBI. (2006). Crime in the United States, 2005. Available: www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius
69
70
Table 3.4
Five-Year Arrest Trends by Gender (8,815 agencies; 2005 estimated population 185,294,195; 2001 estimated population 178,385,937)
Male Total Under 18 Years of Age Total Female Under 18 Years of Age
Offense Charged 2001 6,399,891 6,585 7,250 +10.1 563 649 +15.3 1,020 926 9.2 6,506,200 +1.7 986,957 913,169 7.5 1,889,068 2,067,624 +9.5 398,919 66 2005 2001 2005 2001 2005 2001
Percentage Change
Percentage Change
Percentage Change
2005 390,109 79
Percentage Change 2.2 +19.7
7/24/2007
Totala
Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 16,145 57,233 230,818 223,876 3.0 30,034 28,426 5.4 57,052 60,085 +5.0 13,223 14,875 +12.5 6,540 7,663 58,348 15,300 5.2 2,724 2,306 15.3 182 183 +0.5 +17.2 +2.3
4:26 PM
Forcible rape
38 1,272 8,989
34 1,570 8,803
10.5 +23.4 2.1
Page 70
Robbery
Aggravated assault 154,572 454,670 68,342 68,145 0.3 21,393 16,116 24.7 439,286 3.4 134,816 108,418 19.6 160,826 +4.0 49,339 43,043 12.8 25,054 266,210 13,518
Burglary
28,721 281,444 14,880
+14.6 +5.7 +10.1
6,868 86,557 4,614
5,898 79,873 3,559
14.1 7.7 22.9
Larcenytheft
Motor vehicle theft 9,227 310,781 686,811 603,381 606,705 +0.6 98,286 676,647 1.5 210,738 306,511 1.4 46,544 46,256 172,047 104,432 8,390 9.1 5,190 4,470 13.9 0.6 18.4 +6.3
Arson
1,615 64,794 306,397 186,874
1,559 67,120 326,604 201,968
3.5 +3.6 +6.6 +8.1
632 10,365 98,671 45,067
670 10,486 90,000 52,061
+6.0 +1.2 8.8 +15.5
Violent crimeb
Property crime
Other assaults
(Continued)
Table 3.4
Male Total Under 18 Years of Age Total Under 18 Years of Age Female
(Continued)
Offense Charged 2001 42,879 43,241 +0.8 2,424 1,792 26.1 28,917 28,276 2.2 1,383 2005 2001 2005 2001 2005 2001
Percentage Change
Percentage Change
Percentage Change
2005 837
Forgery and counterfeiting 114,367 6,913 61,656 67,082 +8.8 13,839 11,610 16.1 13,759 16,773 +21.9 6,255 9.5 752 442 41.2 6,793 6,508 4.2 105,797 7.5 3,597 3,061 14.9 99,603 91,939 7.7 1,909 565 2,794
7/24/2007
Fraud
1,718 354 2,353
10.0 37.3 15.8
Embezzlement
4:26 PM
Stolen property (buying, receiving, possessing) 140,283 87,988 105,428 +19.8 19,453 23,991 +23.3 7,723 141,823 +1.1 58,080 55,657 4.2 26,899 29,616 9,110
Page 71
Vandalism
+10.1 +18.0
8,746 2,249
9,003 2,853
+2.9 +26.9
Weapons (carrying, possessing, etc.) 14,185 13,883 2.1 219 191 12.8
Prostitution and commercialized vice 49,210 47,050 4.4 10,145 8,981
24,954
29,425
+17.9
468
650
+38.9
Sex offenses (except forcible rape and prostitution) 752,614 854,368 +13.5 98,127
11.5
3,310
3,328
+0.5
800
752
6.0
Drug abuse violations 3,797 3,081 18.9
89,890
8.4
166,933
208,270
+24.8
19,450
19,662
+1.1
Gambling
299
408
+36.5
599
580
3.2
13
18
+38.5
71
(Continued)
72
Table 3.4
(Continued)
Male Total Under 18 Years of Age Total
Female Under 18 Years of Age
Offense Charged 2001 67,753 60,033 11.4 3,586 2,050 42.8 19,397 18,868 2.7 2,066 2005 2001 2005 2001 2005 2001
Percentage Change
Percentage Change
Percentage Change
2005 1,351
7/24/2007
Offenses against the family and children 704,313 670,011 4.9 10,099 8,322 17.6 142,990 159,087 +11.3 2,190
4:26 PM
Driving under the influence 293,767 356,632 270,901 269,402 0.6 71,782 78,232 +9.0 88,344 317,209 11.1 10,549 8,094 23.3 56,299 56,116 98,232 264,279 10.0 59,822 49,449 17.3 92,664 94,138 +1.6 0.3 +11.2
2,377
+8.5
Liquor laws
28,957 2,814 30,935
27,400 2,476 38,891
5.4 12.0 +25.7
Page 72
Drunkenness
Disorderly conduct 12,495 1,728,473 1,844,968 +6.7 176,706 159,130 9.9 15,612 +24.9 1,218 2,319 +90.4 3,225 473,191
Vagrancy
4,274 551,916
+32.5 +16.6
314 63,760
883 60,508
+181.2 5.1
All other offenses (except traffic) 1,694 55,839 56,266 +0.8 55,839 56,266 2,084 +23.0 508 218 57.1 +0.8
Suspicion
546 24,487
302 23,763
44.7 3.0
278 24,487
77 23,763
72.3 3.0
Curfew and loitering law violations 34,853 30,549 12.3 34,853
Runaway
30,549
12.3
50,916
41,713
18.1
50,916
41,713
18.1
SOURCE: Adapted from FBI. (2006). Crime in the United States, 2005. Available: www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius
7/24/2007
4:26 PM
Page 73
Chapter 3
73
(Text continued from page 67) concluded that violent offending by females is the result of a complex web of victimization, substance abuse, economic conditions, and dysfunctional families, and this would seem to suggest the need for a multiagency response. It is fairly common for girls fleeing from abusive parents to be labeled as runaways. Krisberg (2005) concluded, Research on young women who enter the juvenile justice system suggests that they often have histories of physical and sexual abuse. Girls in the juvenile justice system have severe problems with substance abuse and mental health issues (p. 123). If they are dealt with simply by being placed on probation, the underlying causes of the problems they confront are unlikely to be addressed. To deal with these causes, counseling may be needed for all parties involved, school authorities may need to be informed if truancy is involved, and further action in adult court may be necessary. If, as often happens, a girls family moves from place to place, the process may begin all over because there is no transfer of information or records from one agency or place to another. According to Krisberg, There are very few juvenile justice programs that are specifically designed for young women. Genderresponsive programs and policies are urgently needed (p. 123).
Race
Official statistics on race are subject to a number of errors, as pointed out in Chapter 2. Any index of nonwhite arrests may be inflated as a result of discriminatory practices among criminal justice personnel (Benekos & Merlo, 2004, pp. 194210). For example, the presence of a black under suspicious circumstances may result in an official arrest even though the police officer knows the charge(s) will be dismissed. Frazier, Bishop, and Henretta (1992) found that black juveniles receive harsher dispositions from the justice system when they live in areas with high proportions of whites (i.e., where they are true numerical minority group members). Kempf (1992) found that juvenile justice outcomes were influenced by race at every stage except adjudication. Feiler and Sheley (1999), collecting data via phone interviews in the New Orleans metropolitan area, found that both black and white citizens were more likely to express a preference for transfer of juveniles to adult court when the juvenile offenders in question were black. Sutphen, Kurtz, and Giddings (1993), using vignettes with police officers, found that blacks were charged with more offenses more often than were whites and that whites received no charges more often than did blacks. Leiber and Stairs (1999) found partial support for their hypothesis that African Americans charged with drug offenses would be treated more harshly in jurisdictions characterized by economic and racial inequality and adherence to beliefs in racial differences than in jurisdictions without such characteristics. Taylor (1994) pointed out that young black males are more likely to be labeled as slow learners or educable mentally retarded, to have learning difficulties in school, to lag behind their peers in basic educational competencies or skills, and to drop out of school at an early age. Juvenile black males are also more likely to be institutionalized or placed in foster care. Many minority group members live in lower-class neighborhoods in large urban centers where the greatest concentration of law enforcement officers exists. Because arrest statistics are more complete for large cities, we must take into account the sizable proportion of blacks found in these cities rather than the 12% statistic derived from calculating the proportion of blacks in our society. It is these same arrest statistics that lead many to believe that any overrepresentation of black juveniles in these statistics reflects racial inequities in the juvenile and criminal justice networks.
7/24/2007
4:26 PM
Page 74
74
JUVENILE JUSTICE
Analysis of official arrest statistics of persons under the age of 18 years has traditionally shown a disproportionate number of blacks. Data presented in Table 3.5 show that blacks accounted for 30% of all arrests in 2005. Blacks accounted for roughly 50% of reported arrests for violent crime and 30% of the arrests for property crimes in the under-18-years-of-age category. American Indians/Alaskan Natives and Asian or Pacific Islanders accounted for very small portions of all crimes, as can be seen in Table 3.5. With respect to specific crimes, blacks under the age of 18 years accounted for more than half (68%) of the arrests for robbery, slightly more than half (54%) of the arrests for murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, 43% of the arrests for stolen property, 40% of the arrests for other assaults, and 56% of the arrests for prostitution-related offenses. They also accounted for some 90% of all arrests for gambling. Based on population parameters, blacks under the age of 18 years accounted for lower than expected arrest rates for driving under the influence (4%), other liquor law violations (5%), and drunkenness (8%). Other minority group arrests accounted for less than 3% of total arrests in 2005. As indicated previously, socialenvironmental factors have an important impact on delinquency rates and perhaps especially on official delinquency rates (Leiber & Stairs, 1999). Race and ethnicity as causes of delinquency are complicated by social class (Bellair & McNulty, 2005). A disproportionate number of blacks are found in the lower socioeconomic class with all of the correlates conducive to high delinquency. Unless these conditions are changed, each generation caught in this environment not only inherits the same conditions that created high crime and delinquency rates for its parents but also transmits them to the next generation. It is interesting to note that, according to research, when ethnic or racial groups leave high crime and delinquency areas, they tend to take on the crime rate of the specific part of the community to which they move. It should also be noted that there are differential crime and delinquency rates among black neighborhoods, giving further credibility to the influence of the socialenvironmental approach to explaining high crime and delinquency rates. It is unlikely that any single factor can be used to explain the disproportionate number of black juveniles involved in some type of delinquency. The most plausible explanations currently center on environmental and socioeconomic factors characteristic of ghetto areas. Violence and a belief that planning and thrift are not realistic possibilities may be transmitted across generations. This transmission is cultural, not genetic, and may account in part for high rates of violent crime and gambling (luck as an alternative to planning). Whatever the reasons, it is quite clear that black juveniles are overrepresented in delinquency statistics, especially with respect to violent offenses, and that inner-city black neighborhoods are among the most dangerous places in America to live. Because most black offenders commit their offenses in black neighborhoods against black victims, these neighborhoods are often characterized by violence, and children living in them grow up as observers and/or victims of violence. Such violence undoubtedly takes a toll on childrens ability to do well in school, to develop a sense of trust and respect for others, and to develop and adopt nonviolent alternatives. The same concerns exist for members of other racial and ethnic groups growing up under similar conditions. Krisberg (2005) summed up the current state of knowledge concerning the impact of the characteristics of juvenile offenders as follows: If you are feeling confused and getting a mild headache after considering these complexities, you are probably getting the right messages. Terms such as race, ethnicity, and social class are used imprecisely and sometimes interchangeably. This is a big problem that is embedded in the existing data and research. There is no simple solution to this conceptual quagmire except to recognize that it exists and frustrates both good research and sound public policy discussions on this topic. (pp. 8384)
Table 3.5
Arrests Under 18 Years of Age Percentage Distributiona
Arrests by Race (10,974 agencies; 2005 estimated population 217,722,329)
Offense Charged 1,570,282 924 397 499 18 10 100.0 43.0 1,059,742 469,382 20,490 20,668 100.0 67.5 29.9 54.0
Total
White
Black
American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian or Pacific Islander Total White Black
American Indian or Alaskan Native 1.3 1.9
Asian or Pacific Islander 1.3 1.1
7/24/2007
Total
Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 2,851 21,460 44,845 57,054 218,383 27,499 5,787 70,080 308,723 181,114 3,051 2,259 725 105,684 71,486 207,414 92,089 4,153 2,063 18 33,780 34,897 632 4,575 1,076 63 14,798 11,943 349 409 73 771 5,067 1,881 49 149,754 61,407 3,176 4,046 38,287 17,663 565 539 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 24,951 18,942 487 465 100.0 6,598 14,487 96 279 100.0 1,834 969 31 17 100.0 64.3 30.7 55.6 67.1 68.6 53.8 79.1 48.2 67.2 58.4 74.0
4:26 PM
Forcible rape
34.0 67.5 42.2 31.0 28.1 43.4 18.6 49.8 29.8 39.5 23.8
1.1 0.4 1.1 1.0 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.9 1.3 1.1 0.6
0.6 Page 75 1.3 1.0 0.9 1.9 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.6 1.0 1.6
Robbery
Aggravated assault
Burglary
Larcenytheft
Motor vehicle theft
Arson
Violent crime
Property crimeb
Other assaults
Forgery and counterfeiting 5,796 849 532 3,723
Fraud
1,981 293
32 8
60 16
100.0 100.0
64.2 62.7
34.2 34.5
0.6 0.9
1.0 1.9
Embezzlement
75
(Continued)
Table 3.5
(Continued)
76
Arrests Under 18 Years of Age Percentage Distributiona Total 16,305 8,941 7,019 146 199 100.0 54.8 43.0 White Black American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian or Pacific Islander Total White Black 0.9 American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian or Pacific Islander 1.2 76,096 32,949 20,154 12,161 253 381 100.0 61.2 59,349 14,961 955 831 100.0 78.0 19.7 36.9 1.3 0.8 1.1 1.2 1,200 501 670 9 20 100.0 41.8 55.8 0.8 1.7 11,979 8,534 3,226 110 109 100.0 71.2 26.9 0.9 0.9 139,776 96,207 41,076 1,301 1,192 100.0 68.8 29.4 0.9 0.9 1,463 3,850 3,042 714 80 106 64,881 36,928 876 14 1,201 100.0 100.0 79.0 62.5 18.5 35.5 2.1 0.8 0.4 12,584 11,744 502 223 115 100.0 93.3 4.0 1.8 0.9 91,800 11,401 10,122 951 84,107 4,322 2,535 230 836 98 100.0 100.0 91.6 88.8 4.7 8.3 2.8 2.0 0.9 0.9
Offense Charged
7/24/2007
Stolen property (buying, receiving, possessing)
Vandalism
4:26 PM
Weapons (carrying, possessing, etc.)
Prostitution and commercialized vice
Page 76
Sex offenses (except (except forcible rape and prostitution)
Gambling
Liquor laws
Drunkenness
(Continued)
Table 3.5 (Continued)

Arrests Under 18 Years of Age Percentage Distributiona
7/24/2007 4:26 PM
Offense Charged 147,976 3,416 264,643 190,241 67,221 3,429 3,752 100.0 2,702 676 12 26 100.0 87,640 57,331 1,889 1,116 100.0
Total
White
Black
American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian or Pacific Islander Total White 59.2 79.1 71.9
Black 38.7 19.8 25.4
American Indian or Alaskan Native 1.3 0.4 1.3
Asian or Pacific Islander 0.8 0.8 1.4
Disorderly conduct
Page 77
Vagrancy
All other offenses (except traffic) 400 103,886 64,881 36,928 876 1.201 253 144 2 1
Suspicion
100.0 100.0
63.3 62.5
36.0 35.5
0.5 0.8
0.3 1.2
Curfew and loitering law violations 80,945 57,826 18,660 1,534
Runaway
2,925
100.0
71.4
23.1
1.9
3.6
a. Percentages might not add to 100.0 because of rounding. b. Violent crimes are offenses of murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Property crimes are offenses of burglary, larcenytheft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.
77
7/24/2007
4:26 PM
Page 78
78
JUVENILE JUSTICE
Career OpportunityCriminalist
Job Description: Includes positions of laboratory technicians who examine evidence such as fingerprints and documents. Use chemistry, biology, and forensic science techniques to examine and classify/identify blood, body fluid, DNA, fiber, and fingerprint evidence that may be of value in solving criminal cases. Often on call, work in dangerous locations and in proximity to dead bodies and chemical and biological hazards. Sometimes testify in court as to evidentiary matters. Employment Requirements: At least a 4-year degree in chemistry, biology, physics, or forensic science. In some agencies, applicant must be a sworn police officer and must complete entry-level requirements for that position before moving to forensics. In other jurisdictions, civilians are hired as criminalists. Beginning Salary: Between $30,000 and $40,000. Benefits vary widely depending on jurisdiction and whether or not the position requires a sworn officer.
S U M M A RY
Official profiles of juvenile offenders reflect only the characteristics of those who have been apprehended and officially processed. Although they tell little or nothing about the characteristics of all juveniles who actually commit delinquent acts, they are useful in dealing with juveniles who have been officially processed. These official statistics currently lead us to some discomforting conclusions about the nature of delinquency in America as it relates to social and physical factors. It might not be the broken home itself that leads to delinquency; instead, it may be the quality of life within the family in terms of consistency of discipline, level of tension, and ease of communication. Therefore, in some instances, it may be better to remove children from intact families that do not provide a suitable environment than to maintain the integrity of the families. In addition, it might not be necessary to automatically place juveniles from broken homes into institutions, foster homes, and so forth provided that the quality of life within the broken homes is acceptable. We perhaps need to rethink our position on the ideal family consisting of two biological parents and their children. This family no longer exists for most American children. For many children, the family of reality consists of a single mother who is head of the household or a biological parent and stepparent. Although many one-parent families experience varying degrees of delinquency and abuse/neglect, children in many others are valued, protected, and raised in circumstances designed to give them a chance at success in life. Because education is an important determinant of occupational success in our society, and because occupational success is an important determinant of life satisfaction, it is important that we attempt to minimize the number of juveniles who are pushed out of the educational system. Both juvenile justice practitioners and school officials need to pursue programs that minimize the number of juveniles who drop out. It may be that we are currently asking too
7/24/2007
4:26 PM
Page 79
Chapter 3
79
much of educators when we require them not only to provide academic and vocational information but also to promote psychological and social well-being, moral development, and a sense of direction for juveniles (formerly provided basically by the family). At the current time, however, if educators fail to provide for these concerns, the juvenile often has nowhere else to turn except his or her peers, who may be experiencing similar problems. One result of this alienation from both the family and the educational system is the development of delinquent behavior patterns. Another may be direct attacks on school personnel or fellow students. We have concentrated our interest and research activities on delinquency and abuse/ neglect of the lower social class and have generally ignored the existence of these problems in the middle and upper classes. The importance of lower-class delinquency cannot be ignored, but we must also realize that the problem may be equally widespread, although perhaps in different forms, in the middle and upper classes. We can no longer afford the luxury of viewing delinquency as only a problem of lower-class neighborhoods in urban areas. The problem of delinquency is increasing at a rapid rate in what were commonly considered to be quiet middle-class suburban areas and in many rural areas as well. Because motivations and types of offenses committed by middle-class delinquents may differ from those of their lower-class counterparts, new techniques and approaches for dealing with these problems may be required. If those working with children can develop more effective ways of promoting good relationships between juveniles and their families and of making the importance of a relevant education clear to juveniles, involvement in gang activities may be lessened. At the current time, however, understanding the importance of peer group pressure and the demands of the gang on the individual juvenile is extremely important in understanding drug abuse and related activities. If gangs could be used to promote legitimate concerns rather than illegitimate concerns, one of the major sources of support for certain types of delinquent activities (e.g., vandalism, drug abuse) could be weakened considerably. Reasonable alternatives to current gang activities need to be developed and promoted. Finally, there is no denying that black juveniles are disproportionately involved in official delinquency. Although there are still those who argue racial connections to such delinquency, the evidence that such behavior is a result of family, school, and neighborhood conditions, and perhaps the actions of juvenile justice practitioners, rather than genetics is overwhelming. Whatever the reasons for the high rates of delinquency, and especially violent offenses, in black neighborhoods, it behooves us all to address this issue with as many resources as possible in the interests of those living in both high crime areas and the larger society. None of the factors discussed in this chapter can be considered a direct cause of delinquency. It is important to remember that official statistics reflect only a small proportion of all delinquent activities. Profiles based on the characteristics discussed in this chapter are valuable to the extent that they alert us to a number of problem areas that must be addressed if we are to make progress in the battle against delinquency. Attempts to improve the quality of family life and the relevancy of education, and attempts to change discriminatory practices in terms of social class, race, and gender, are needed badly. Improvements in these areas will go a long way toward reducing the frequency of certain types of delinquent activity.
Note: Please see the Companion Study Site for Internet exercises and Web resources. Go to www.sagepub.com/juvenilejustice6study.
7/24/2007
4:26 PM
Page 80
80
JUVENILE JUSTICE
Critical Thinking Questions

1. What is the relationship between profiles of delinquents based on official statistics and the actual extent of delinquency? 2. Discuss the relationships among the family, the educational system, drugs, and delinquency. 3. Discuss some of the reasons for the overrepresentation of black juveniles in official delinquency statistics. What could be done to decrease the proportion of young blacks involved in delinquency? How do area of the city, race, and social class combine to affect delinquency? Is delinquency basically a lower-class phenomenon? If so, why should those in the middle and upper classes be concerned about it? 4. Discuss the methamphetamine crisis. How does it differ from other drug-related crises we have faced in the past? What do you think can be done to deal with this crisis?
Suggested Readings
Bellair, P. E., & McNulty, T. L. (2005). Beyond the bell curve: Community disadvantage and the explanation of blackwhite differences in adolescent violence. Criminology, 43, 11351169. Carter, P. L. (2003). Black cultural capital, status positioning, and schooling conflicts for low-income African American youth. Social Problems, 50, 136155. Curry, G. D., Decker, S. H., & Egley, A., Jr. (2002). Gang involvement and delinquency in middle school. Justice Quarterly, 19, 275293. De Coster, S., Heimer, K., & Wittrock, S. M. (2006). Neighborhood disadvantage, social capital, street context, and youth violence. Sociological Quarterly, 17, 723753. Demuth, S., & Brown, S. L. (2004). Family structure, family processes, and adolescent delinquency: The significance of parental absence versus parental gender. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41, 5881. Ginwright, S. A. (2002). Classed out: The challenges of social class in black community change. Social Problems, 49, 544562. Hango, D. W. (2006). The long-term effect of childhood residential mobility on educational attainment. Sociological Quarterly, 17, 631664. Holzman, H. R. (1996). Criminological research on public housing: Toward a better understanding of people, places, and spaces. Crime & Delinquency, 42, 361378. McNulty, T. L., & Bellair, P. E. (2003). Explaining racial and ethnic differences in adolescent violence: Structural disadvantage, family well-being, and social capital. Justice Quarterly, 20, 131. Osgood, D. (2004). Unstructured socializing and rates of delinquency. Criminology, 42, 519550. Stewart, E. A. (2003). School social bonds, school climate, and school misbehavior: A multilevel analysis. Justice Quarterly, 20, 575604. Sutphen, R., Kurtz, D., & Giddings, M. (1993). The influence of juveniles race on police decisionmaking: An exploratory study. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 44(2), 6976. Thornberry, T. P., Huizinga, D., & Loeber, R. (2004). The Causes and Correlates studies: Findings and policy implications. Juvenile Justice, 9(1). Available: www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/203555/jj2.html Wade, T. J., & Pevalin, D. J. (2005). Adolescent delinquency and health. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 4, 619655. Watson, D. W. (2004). Juvenile offender comprehensive reentry substance abuse treatment. Journal of Correctional Education, 55, 211224.

Chapter 3 Characteristics of Juvenile Offenders

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Chapter 3 Characteristics of Juvenile Offenders

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

03-Cox (Juvenile)-45337.

Are juveniles who hang out on street corners to be feared?

Characteristics of Juvenile Offenders

Characteristics of Juvenile Offenders

Risk Factors for Health and Behavior Problems

Characteristics of Juvenile Offenders

Families Can Open Their Homes to Troubled Teens

Characteristics of Juvenile Offenders

Characteristics of Juvenile Offenders

Characteristics of Juvenile Offenders

Forum Tackles Discipline, At-Risk Youths

Characteristics of Juvenile Offenders

Characteristics of Juvenile Offenders

Percentages of Students Fearing Attack at School

10.7 10 6.1 5 0 Total Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black 4.1

Characteristics of Juvenile Offenders

Characteristics of Juvenile Offenders

Characteristics of Juvenile Offenders

2005 7,637,190 7,548

Percentage Change +0.9 +6.2

13,742 49,592 237,529

13,570 50,128 241,713

1.3 +1.1 +1.8

50,756 200,866 19,960

5.1 8.9 9.3

139,524 573,623 62,542

143,517 562,373 62,851

+2.9 2.0 +0.5

5,161 54,733 301,174

5,222 55,853 276,804

+1.2 +2.0 8.1

4,858 307,968 780,547

5,147 312,959 773,888

+5.9 +1.6 0.9

Property crimeb 838,946 843,739 +0.6 68,546

Percentage Change 4.9

212,332 11,874 69,418

204,237 12,023 71,758

3.8 +1.3 +3.4

Weapons (carrying, possessing, etc.) 41,761 40,686 2.6 102 99 2.9

Prostitution and commercialized vice 53,672 52,464 2.3 6,005 5,318

Drug abuse violations 3,758 3,450 8.2

Offenses against the family and children

Driving under the influence

All other offenses (except traffic)

Curfew and loitering law violations

Percentage Change 2001 2005 2001 2005

Percentage Change +5.3 7,448 +6.8

Motor vehicle theft

Forgery and counterfeiting

Stolen property (buying, receiving, possessing) 167,182

Weapons (carrying, possessing, etc.)

Prostitution and commercialized vice

Sex offenses (except forcible rape and prostitution)

Drug abuse violations

Offenses against the family and children

Driving under the influence

All other offenses (except traffic)

Curfew and loitering law violations

*Less than one-tenth of 1%.

Characteristics of Juvenile Offenders

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter

Motor vehicle theft